Deseret News | Temples, furs, shotguns and the saving of Mormon history

Reader comments
Temples, furs, shotguns and the saving of Mormon history

Thanks. | 6:52 a.m. June 11, 2009

Thanks to Bro. Wood.
Thanks for helping future generations connect with the history of the Church of Jesus Christ and the prophets of the restoration.

Cats | 8:13 a.m. June 11, 2009

This man really had tremendous foresight. At a time when others were focusing on moving forward, he had the ability to look back to rescue our history. Thanks a million to Bro Wood for making it possible for us all to recapture our past.

Walk Like an Egyptian | 8:38 a.m. June 11, 2009

The article says Mr. Wood obtained an original Book of Abraham manuscript. That must be an embarassment for the church. Is that on display too or conveniently hidden away?

Comments continue below

True History | 9:02 a.m. June 11, 2009

He was influenced by Jedediah M. Grant the father of Heber Grant, though Jedediah had short a life(40)and written history,one stands out in my mind.(Jedediah M. Grant JOD Vol 1 p 346)
"The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples,causing his crucifixion,was evidently based upon polygamy,according to the tstimony of the philosphers who rose in that age. A beleif in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons."

Mr. Egyptian | 9:06 a.m. June 11, 2009

Please explain why you thing this would be an embarrasment for the church.

Otis Spurlock | 9:11 a.m. June 11, 2009

To Walk Like an Egyptian,

It is in the Church Archives in Salt Lake City along with Joseph's Seer Stones.

Re: True History | 10:12 a.m. June 11, 2009

Interesting. Good find on an obscure quote. Though, it's clearly an opinion and not a Mormon doctrine.

RE: True History 10:12 | 11:56 a.m. June 11, 2009

"it's clearly an opinion and not Mormon doctrine",but shared by Orson Hyde(JOD vol 2,p82 1854) "WE say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed,before he was crucified."
This sounds like something Dan Brown would invent.

Mr. Egyptian follow up | 12:00 p.m. June 11, 2009

I'm not the Mr. Egyptian who left the original comment, but to you who asked why it would be an embarrassment to the church:

The Book of Abraham papyri that were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of NY (and an additional one in the Church Archives) in the 1960's were found to be funerary texts. Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that they bear no direct resemblance to the "translation" given as the Book of Abraham, nor were they written by Abraham.

If you haven't heard about this, I suggest doing some research on the subject.

This is why they might be an embarrassment to the church. It would be like finding the gold plates and discovering that what was written on them had nothing to do with Nephite and Lamanite civilizations.

You shall know them... | 12:29 p.m. June 11, 2009

by their works, not their artifacts. You artifact hounds get things mixed up at times. I knew a Mormon man well who collected arifacts in a big way. He was not one endowed by the Spirit. To him, seeing was believing...like doubting Thomas. Good morning to all you doubting Thomas people up there.
Wood did his work for the Glory of the Kingdom and not for his own self seeking interests. Bless Him.

Egyptian Follow up Cont. | 12:47 p.m. June 11, 2009

As the 'Book of Abraham' papyri was a funery text, it stands to reason that it was not in fact the text from which was translated the current text found in the Doctrine and Covenants. Because that text was written by Abraham.

Further to clarify using your own example it would be like finding the gold plates written by someone other than the prophet at the time (as this was a common way to keep records at the time) and discovering that what was written on them had nothing to do with the Nephite and Lamanite civilzations.

So the LDS church would be exempt from any embarassment as there is no implication that others did not keep records during the same time period as Abraham.

Your own text reveals a conflict of reasoning that the LDS church would be embarassed. "Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars agree that they bear no direct resemblance to the "translation" given as the Book of Abraham, nor were they written by Abraham."

In your opinion does the LDS church not recognize other record keepers during this time period in question?

It Matters Not | 2:06 p.m. June 11, 2009

To those who keep harping on how the claims of divine authority by the LDS church must be false because of some Book of Abraham records:

it doesn't matter what you say.

When you KNOW something is from God, you know it and you, or I, are powerless to change it. Please quit looking only with your eyes, meaning with the intelligence YOU have alone, and look at things with your heart, or in other words, study something all you wish but be willing to defer your knowledge to the knowledge of God. It is humility that you lack.

As I said, when you know, you know.

I know.

Dan Maloy

Just a comment | 2:43 p.m. June 11, 2009

I found your explanation to be well done. I've heard that apologists have accounted for this by stating that those who claim they are merely funeray texts focus on the direct/literal interpretation but fail to understand the deeper symbolism contained within the document. It is, of course, possible to read a text on multiple levels (e.g. Animal farm can be read as a simple story about farm animals or understood to be a critique of communism).

My second comment is that if God indeed revealed to Joseph Smith a particular interpretation/understanding of the text, there is no need to be embarrased or withdraw the translation once it is disputed. If something is revealed through the epistemology of faith, it is probably best that you just go with it.

No smoking gun | 3:11 p.m. June 11, 2009

Have you ever seen pictures of the "scraps" of papyri that were found in the museum? They're REALLY small little scraps. There was hardly anything left, surely not enough to even know if they were part of the "scrolls" obtained by Joseph which somehow helped inspire is translation of the Book of Abraham.

The question B of Abraham critics NEVER address or acknowledge is, "Where did Joseph get a copy of the Book of Abraham?" It was not even known to exist during the life of Joseph, and other parallel copies have been discovered since.

People who somehow think that the Book of Abraham is a slam-dunk indictment of Joseph Smith have certainly not taken an in-depth look at the issue and have drawn conclusions based on a few lines or paragraphs from anti-Mormon literature.

Anonymous | 4:25 p.m. June 11, 2009

"Then, he felt the spirit of Joseph Smith fill the room."

Yeah, sure. Now the Spirit of Joseph Smith is wandering around filling rooms and dwelling in people's bosoms, just like the Holy Ghost!

The Church's official website says that people who teach false doctrines as though they are Church doctrines are apostates.

Anyone who teaches that "the spirit of Joseph Smith fill the room" is an apostate.

Fredd | 4:48 p.m. June 11, 2009

Joseph Smith said the papyri were written by Abraham's own hand. Even if I give you that God inspired the translation, the funeray scraps did not date from Abraham's time. The only way to reconcile your faith and the Book of Abraham is to suspend reality and ignore the teachings of Joseph Smith.

Walk Like an Egyptian | 5:12 p.m. June 11, 2009

Sorry, but those were not tiny "scraps" found in the museum. It was in fact the complete papyrus and is still is. Quit distorting the facts in order to justify your ignorant position trying to support the church.

the truth | 5:23 p.m. June 11, 2009

The Abrahamic papyri have discussed ad nauseum on this site under other stories,

and no one convinced any one to change there opinion,

The only explanation of them that seems to satify everything is this one:

Abraham wrote an original funeral text,

that is the one Joseph Smith gave us, most likely by revelation,

The egytian funeral text, papayri, that egyptologists translated was most likely a corrupted later version of that original,

Thus, the Joseph Smith's translation and the egyptologist translations are both correct.

Bill | 5:52 p.m. June 11, 2009

To all who ask about the SPIRIT OF JOSEPH SMITH being impossible fail to understand that many people across this country mention the same thing but in a different manner. Say for instance the GHOSTS that are supposed to inhibit a house on the grounds of the Gettysburg Battlefield or other historical sites where there are so called haunted spirits. These are one and the same. What he felt is neither the Holy Ghost or that of the Lord but the very spirit of the Prophet. I have been sitting in my house and have felt the spirit of my Mother enter the room. I felt compelled to do something that she wanted me to do. Once done the spirit left. Nothing unusual about it at all. Just a way to take a punch at the Church.

Changes | 6:16 p.m. June 11, 2009

I wonder if they will point out the 44 "and it came to pass" taken out of the 1st version of the BOM to the 2nd version.

Bill | 6:28 p.m. June 11, 2009

To Changes: Does it really matter? Did it really change the meaning of the scripture in question? Probably not just a means to say it isn't the same as Jospeh Smith's original manuscript. None of the changes have changed the meaning of any of the scriptures that have changed. Most have been words that were redundant or unnecessary in the beginning. In some instances, the Prophet Joseph changed them himself, after all he is the original translator. It is just a way to try and prove the BOOK OF MORMON as a hoax yet it really is nothing of the sort.

Re:Changes | 6:51 p.m. June 11, 2009

If God was driving the translation of the plates, don't you think that the first version would be correct and no changes would need to be made?

still no smoking gun, Fredd | 7:06 p.m. June 11, 2009

2 possibilities:

1) the existing papyri is only a fraction of the original and the translation came from papyri that we no longer have.
2) Joseph Smith's "in his own hand" comment does not mean what you are interpreting it to mean so that you can discount Joseph Smith and the church.

Either way, you still can't answer the question of where the Book of Abraham came from. Somehow Joseph recieved a valid translation (I think I know how. Do you?)

Anonymous | 7:09 p.m. June 11, 2009

One of the most embarrassing things about the doctrine concerning the Indians is that they are not becoming "white" as the Book of Mormon prophesied. . . .

It now appears that the Mormon leaders are trying to "dissolve" the doctrine that the Indians will turn white after turning to Mormonism. The Church has just released its 1981 printing of the "triple combination" which contains the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. This new publication contains a very important change. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians "shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6) In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians "shall be a pure and delightsome people.". . .

Besides all the evidence from the original Book of Mormon manuscript and the first two printed editions [that the reading should be "white"] there is another passage in the Book of Mormon which makes it very clear that Joseph Smith believed that the Lamanites' skins could be turned "white" through repentance:

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;" (3 Nephi 2:15)

Stay on topic | 8:53 p.m. June 11, 2009

Hey anonymous 7:09

In the words of my English teacher . . . "You're pretty much completely off topic."

What does your point have to do with this article?

Fredd | 10:36 a.m. June 12, 2009

To smoking gun-All this is just discourse. In my opinion I know exactly where the Book of Abraham came from. Joseph Smith invented it. Just as he did the BoM and his revelations. As many have said no one is changing their minds on these message boards and I wish you well. I don't believe in Mormonism but I wish no ill will towards Mormons. I enjoy the debate.

Anonymous | 11:01 a.m. June 12, 2009

This is a great article and is one that I fully agree with.

WOW | 4:33 p.m. June 12, 2009

This is Interesting. The "debate" was as well. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not built on Joseph Smith. Its actually built on the principle of revelation. If he had lied about receiving revelations, well then, so much the worse for him. As for me I know he was a prophet because he led us to believe in God the Eternal Father, in Jesus Christ, and to know that the Holy Spirit witnessed of them both. Records or no doesn't really matter, its the doctrines that the church teaches us to live that do; and when we live, we live eternally so long as we're worthy of that life. That's the simple truth

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.